Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94638 Case Number: AD9524 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: FARAH EXPORTS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW 193/94.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions of
both parties, is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation is reasonable, in this case.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal and upholds the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94638 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2495
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
FARAH EXPORTS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
CW 193/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures gents' trousers and comprises 3
plants based in Galway, Kiltimagh and Ballyhaunis. The
dispute, which concerns one worker, a machinist, arose from
an incident which resulted in the worker being suspended for
one week, without pay. The dispute was the subject of
investigation by a Rights Commissioner who recommended that
the period of suspension be reduced to 3 days. The
Recommendation was appealed by the Union on the 4th of
November, 1994. The Court heard the appeal on the 28th of
February, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has been victimised by the Company as a
result of the fact that she was a senior shop steward at
the Ballyhaunis plant. She was a conscientious
representative and this led her into conflict with
management at the plant.
2. The victimisation of the worker by the Company took many
forms (details supplied to the Court). The specific
incident which led to her suspension (details supplied)
related to a dispute between the worker and her
supervisors on the shop floor. Allegations followed, by
letter, of the worker's "failure to adhere to quality
standards" and her unwillingness to accept correction.
These allegations are refuted in full.
3. The Company is in breach of the Company/Union agreement
by imposing the suspension on the worker. The agreement
states that matters of discipline should be dealt with
by means of verbal and written warnings.
4. Over the past number of years, the worker has been
subjected to numerous unreasonable attacks by both
senior management and supervisory staff. The suspension
is the latest of such attacks.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was given one week's suspension due to her
failure to attend to Quality Standards or to accept
counselling and due also to her use of abusive language.
2. A heated conversation between the worker and her
supervisors arose during which the worker became very
angry. She was suspended because she refused to return
to the supervisor's office to sort out the dispute.
3. The Union's allegation that the worker has been 'picked
upon' because she was previously a shop steward is
totally rejected.
4. The Company is prepared to accept the Rights
Commissioner's suggestion that both sides should "let
by-gones be by-gones" and work hard to achieve a better
understanding in the future.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions of
both parties, is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation is reasonable, in this case.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal and upholds the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th March, 1995 Finbarr Flood
M.K./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman